compose_xingce_answer_prompt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool does not answer questions, call external LLMs, or select options. It also mentions the output includes an answer_prompt with constraints, output schema, and safety contract. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects or is read-only, nor mention any authorization or rate limiting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at three sentences. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second lists supported features, third clarifies limitations and output. No unnecessary words or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters, provide usage context, or describe the output schema (though it exists). For a tool with such complexity, the description should cover more ground.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions two parameters (module_hint and section_context) as supporting routing, but ignores the other 9 parameters (e.g., options, strict_mode, allow_answer, image_present, material_text, question_text, table_present, material_present, visual_description). This provides almost no added meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it composes a conservative answer prompt for LLM-in-the-loop answering and explicitly notes what it does not do (does not answer, call external LLM, select options). It mentions supporting module_hint/section_context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool compose_xingce_analysis_prompt, which could lead to confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., compose_xingce_analysis_prompt, classify_question). It does not state prerequisites, when to prefer this tool, or when not to use it. The only hint is that it supports routing by exam section context, but this is vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.